ArticlePloS one2026
Predicting lymph node metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer using clinical and PET/CT-derived morphological features: An interpretable machine-learning study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crucial for staging and treatment planning. This study aimed to establish a standardized machine learning workflow based on routinely available clinical, serological, and PET/CT-derived parameters to enhance preoperative LNM risk stratification.
methodsThis retrospective study included 255 patients with histologically confirmed NSCLC, all of whom underwent systematic lymph-node dissection. Patients were randomly divided, with stratification by pathological lymph-node status, into a training cohort (n = 178) and an internal held-out test test cohort (n = 77). Candidate predictors were screened using univariable and multivariable logistic regression in the training cohort. Six machine-learning algorithms were trained and optimized using repeated nested five-fold cross-validation. After model development was completed, all six models were applied without modification to the test cohort. Test-set AUCs were compared using paired DeLong tests with Holm correction. The primary model was further evaluated for calibration, clinical utility, and feature contribution using SHAP. A conventional multivariable logistic regression model using the same four predictors was added as a simple reference model, and its discrimination and calibration were compared with those of XGBoost.
resultsCentral tumor location, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen, elevated squamous cell carcinoma antigen, and solid nodule status were retained as predictors; none of the quantitative PET metabolic parameters remained independently associated with LNM. XGBoost achieved the highest cross-validated AUC among the six candidate machine-learning algorithms in the training cohort (0.735; 95% CI, 0.653-0.813) and was therefore designated the primary model. In the internal held-out test cohort, XGBoost achieved an AUC of 0.747 (95% CI, 0.631-0.846). The conventional logistic regression reference model achieved a test AUC of 0.733 (95% CI, 0.612-0.841), with no significant difference from XGBoost (DeLong P = 0.301). Its Brier score was 0.152, compared with 0.198 for XGBoost.
conclusionXGBoost model showed moderate discrimination and a high negative predictive value for pathological LNM in NSCLC. However, its limited positive predictive value and the absence of significant differences among the candidate algorithms support cautious interpretation. External multicenter evaluation is required before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.